It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Think about this:
When "charging" a capacitor, a momentary current causes the voltage to rise. Volts times electron-flow equals energy-flow ( V x I = P). Therefore during a momentary current through a capacitor, there is a joules-per-second transfer of energy from the power supply into the capacitor.
Therefore, during the "charging" process, ENERGY is placed in the capacitor. Capacitors store energy, not charge. When we "charge" a capacitor, we give it a charge of energy. Because we use the word "charge" to refer both to electric charges and ALSO to quantities of energy, capacitor explanations are impossible to understand. "Charging" a capacitor means injecting electrical energy into the device.
Similar trouble is caused when we say that we "charge" a battery. We charge a battery with some energy in the form of stored chemical fuel, but we pump electric charge THROUGH the battery and none of it builds up inside.
It's all terribly confusing. What are students to think if we tell them that "charging a battery" does not store any charge, yet charge must flow through the battery if we want to charge it! Ugh. The word "charge" has far too many meanings. In science this is always a Very Bad Thing.
Another, less misleading situation is similar: think of the word "charge" as applied to gunpowder. A charge is placed in an old cannon, followed by a cannonball. It would be silly to assume that, because we've "charged" the cannon, the cannon now has an electrical charge. But whenever we state that we've "charged" a capacitor, we DO assume that an electrical charge has been stored inside. This is just as silly as mistaking gunpowder for electrostatic charges. Charging a capacitor is like charging a cannon; in both situations we are inserting energy, not electrical charge.
amasci.com...